Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 10:18 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eodhg2$8qk_002(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eobnu0$oor$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: <snip> > >>Treat them like the IRA and or the Mafia. To help take down organized >>crime, the RICO law was created. If tools are needed, they can be made. > > So you are expecting a UN jurisdiction to handle these people and > the messes they make. Are you also willing to subject the > Constitution to the UN charter? Did you read the post you replied to? > That's what you are asking for and demanding. Nope.
From: Eeyore on 15 Jan 2007 10:42 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >T Wake wrote: > > > >> What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are not > >> "soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. > > > >Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers should be > >treated according to the Geneva Convention(s). > > This isn't a Geneva convention styled war. In that case it's not a *war* - period ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Jan 2007 10:46 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > > >>I'm open to hearing about some other model. There's no one to > >>negotiate with, so what's left? > > > >Treat them like the IRA and or the Mafia. To help take down organized > >crime, the RICO law was created. If tools are needed, they can be made. > > So you are expecting a UN jurisdiction to handle these people and > the messes they make. Are you also willing to subject the > Constitution to the UN charter? The UN never declared war on the Mafia or the IRA. Individual countries could deal with them quite effectively. Graham
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 10:57 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:6ee2a$45aa7c38$4fe76e9$22338(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>>In article <eodeen$8qk_004(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[....] >> >>>>Anybody who insists that the extremists are criminals. To treat >>>>their actions as criminal, you must arrest and put them on trial. >>>>This implies that the arresting officiers have jurisdiction wherever >>>>and whenever these extremists reside. This approach requires a >>>>global police force that is not answerable to any single nation. >> >>>No, you have it wrong. You don't need a global police force to do it. >>>Criminals who have crossed borders are dealt with all the time. If >>>someone commits a murder in the US and then runs to England, he is not >>>safe. This is how it would be for the terrorists if they were called the >>>criminals they are. >> >>Idealism will get you nowhere. > > > It isn't idealism. It is how terrorists have been dealt with the world over > for decades before 2001, when America decided to get involved. How many terrorists in the century before 9/11? They weren't dealt with very well in any of the instances regarding terrorist attacks on the US, like embassy bombings, embassy takeover, USS Cole, and so forth. The US finally said "enough is enough." I think we're doing the right thing, whether that's popular or not. Europe certainly won't look out for US interests, neither will the UN, or any other nation or group of nations. The international love/hate of the US relationship has existed almost since the inception of the US as an independent nation. Look at the Brit history, with the long term love/hate relationships with your nearest neighbors let alone the world at large. It is the fate of any of the larger powers that dominate any part of the world. The day the US looks to the world for approval is the day the US is doomed.
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 10:58
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eodh9a$8qk_001(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eobnlh$oor$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <eo834m$8qk_002(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <eo5kh2$gtn$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <eo5c66$8qk_002(a)s814.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>>>They are not oblivious; these people are still thinking in >>>>>the old ways. >>>> >>>>No, they are simply unwilling to allow the wrong word to be applied to >>>>the >>>>situation. If you control the language, you control the debate. By >>>>calling something "a war", you are claiming certain things are true >>>>about >>>>it. If the thing being called "a war" doesn't really have those >>>>characteristics, using the term can lead to confusion. >>> >>>Then me a word to use that describes the fight to the death >>>between two civilizations. I call this war. >> >>I'm sure there is someone in a rubber room somewhere that calls a peanut >>butter sandwich a "lemming". This doesn't mean that we should expect >>them to start jumping off cliffs. The situation we have is nothing like a >>"war". You can claim it is a "new kind of war" but this just gets you >>into expecting your peanut butter sandwiches to start jumping. The >>stuggle against the Mafia is a far-far better model for what you claim we >>have. > > No it is not at all like Mafia conflicts. The Mafia is firmly > entrenched in Western civilization styles of living and conducting > business. You mean all western civilisations carry out illegal behaviours? Ruthlessly kill or maim those who oppose them in the struggle for power? (etc). <snip> > >>No, it is the real world that applies this limitation on the use of the >>word. When a word serves only to increase the confusion of the reader >>about what you mean, it is time to stop using that word. > > THEN GIVE ME A BETTER WORD AND I'LL USE IT. So far you don't have > a word. Why do you need a single word? What is wrong with the terms currently used for dealing with criminals or international relations? <snip> >>>Islam didn't have the notion of nationalism until recently and >>>they still don't quite use this heirarchy for classification of >>>people groups. Until you understand this, >> >>This is another thing that you assume on no basis. > > Do they have a word for nation? If so, when was it created? In Persian it was created about 650 BC, in modern arabic about AD 700 - 800. What is your point? What is the Christian word for nation? When was it created? What is the Western Civilisation word for Nation and when was it created? <snip> >> It is also not a war. > > It is not a war as you define war. So in order for you to call it a war you require a redefinition of "war." Brilliant. From now on we should call it the Peanut Butter Sandwich against Terrorism. > You definition is a Western > civilization definition that was defined based on how > Europe conducted their political and economic disputes. Nonsense. |